or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| The Troops Also Need to Support the American People |
Itsdb |
02/08/07 |
By William M. Arkin
I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.
I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.
I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.
Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.
Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."
First up was 21 year old junior enlisted man Tyler Johnson, whom Engel said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing."
"You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me," Johnson said.
Next up was Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He complained that "one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."
Next was Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain," he said.
These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren't about the United States, I'd say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people.
But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.
The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.
I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.
America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.
I feel like the guy that commented on this column who wrote, "what I would really like to say is...not (or should not be) printable."
So our "confused," "mercenary" troops who are fighting not only for us and the Iraqis but their own lives, that are rightfully frustrated with the obscene, disgusting rhetoric coming from the war critics just need to be taken aside and given a good talking to before going back to base to enjoy their "obscene amenities?"
Whatever, says Mr. Arkin, who is in his response to the critics of his column said "I intentionally chose to criticize the military and used the word (mercenary) to incite and call into question their presumption that the public had a duty to support them. The public has duties, but not to the American military."
The good news I suppose is this poor little victim is taking a recommended hiatus from his column ... while giving his critics the one-finger salute of course. |
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 02/08/07 4:56 pm:
Here's the address, Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman & CEO of GE. Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 02/08/07 8:32 pm:
Dennis, I'd say your superiors can get away with that - but dipsticks like Arkin can't. Here's why:
mercenary, adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000
Our military is made up of volunteer American troops compensated with American dollars & American respect for sacrificing American blood. What's Arkin said is insulting to me and morons like him that choose to insult these honorable men and women can kiss my American a$$.
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
